A 2008 article written by Michael Owens, reporter for the Bristol Herald Courier newspaper notes the perk, which essentially allows members of Congress to send mail with just their stamped signature, is known as the “congressional frank”.

The following are excerpts from that article which goes on to say that postal carriers nationwide hand-delivered $5.8 million worth of  ”franked” mail  … just in the FIRST NINETY DAYS of 2008 … according to congressional documents.

Rick Boucher is a regular on the MASS-MAIL TOP-SPENDER LIST.  Records show that just during the first quarter of 2008, he spent $39,680.00 to cover Southwest Virginia.

Proponents (incumbents) call the privilege a legal blessing that allows congressional members to keep in touch with constituents and notify them of upcoming votes and important events.  Without it, they say, representatives could not meet the out-of-pocket expense of keeping constituents informed.  Some incumbents contend that it is their personal duty to update constituents.

Detractors of the franking privilege, like Pete Sepp of the watchdog group National Taxpayers Union, argue that such mailers are little more than  free advertising for incumbents bent on re-election.  Sepp wrote in an e-mail to the Bristol Herald, “Since incumbents can easily spend over $100,000 on postage and printing alone, the positive spin they can build with that kind of money forces challengers to dig deeper into their pockets.”

Often times, stamped on these mailings are the words:  “Public Document” and/or “Official Business”.  Then, in small italics below that is the line:  “This mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense.”

With franked mail, the line between constituent information and campaign litetature can be thin.  House law bans mass-mailings within 90 days of a primary or an election.  It is interesting to see how many mass mailings go out just in time to meet the 90-day deadline before an election.  Rob Russell, a challenger for the 1st District seat in Tennessee, stated, “It seems to me that the timing would lead me to believe … that [the brochures] are masquerading as information when it ’s really campaign literature.”

Additionally, Congressmen receive donations to their re-election campaigns.  Some of that money is then also spent on additional postage.  For example, Boucher spent an additional $29,259 on postage during his re-election.  (He ran unopposed).  The newspaper article stated, “That figure could easily top $100,000 in a heated election … though he does not foresee such spending in his uncontested election this year.” 

Another major advantage of “franking” is the continual name recognition.  Even with the high-cost  postage war dependent on donations , mass campaigning would be much easier with a free ride on name recognition, said Dr. Phil Roe, a challenger for the Republican nomination in Tennessee.  Roe’s campaign had spent $726 on mail, records show.  He said, “You’re spending a lot of money to get your name out there … When you pay for it yourself, you tend to be a little more judicious on who you send it to.”

Again, incumbents like Boucher, say that franking allows them to notify constituents of important events and UPCOMING VOTES.

Here is a question for the citizens of the 9th District.  When do you recall EVER receiving mailings from Boucher which inform you as to his ….. VOTES? 

Here is a typical statement from Mr. Boucher as quoted in the Bristol Herald Courier:  “I don’t think that what I am sending could be considered political.”

Really?

You be the judge.

Here are some excerpts from reader reactions to reporter Michael Owens’ article:

“Term limits – the only way to get rid of waste like this!  Term limits for both sides of the aisle!”

“If I’m reading this right, our tax money is paying for this, and if I am, this is ludicrous.  Our tax money can be better spent than on this.  Is there no way to involve a broader audience without this exorbiant debt?  Like a main website or something.  This money could be better spent on issues of our states that really need help and not this bull”

“Now is the time to start thinking!’

“This article is a great way to inform all taxpayers about how our tax-money is being directed to personal use by politicians, and it’s done legally.  I hope all readers can grasp the true meaning of all the ‘franking’ benefits that the politicians have voted themselves!  I wish the public would turn their brain ON!”

Again, Rick Boucher, …… “I DON’T THINK WHAT I’M DOING COULD BE CONSIDERED POLITICAL.”

1/9/09 …..  GUN ISSUES ….  OBAMA named ERIC HOLDER to be his Attorney General.  Remember Rick Boucher telling us that “Obama is a friend to gun owners” … “He respects the Second Amendment … and he’s had that position for a long time”?  Eric Holder supported D.C.’s complete ban on functional guns in residents’ homes before it was overturned by the Supreme court.  Former Ohio Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, notes that “despite Obama’s new lip service to the Second Amendment, Holder signed onto a brief this year (2008) reaffirming his long held position that the 2nd Amendment confers no rights whatsoever to private citizens, and that the Supreme court should have upheld D.C.’s absolute ban on Handguns, even in homes.”

Brian Darling, Director of Senate Relations at the Heritage Foundation, noted that Holder’s  position “strongly suggests that Holder is hostile to private gun ownership and will work to restrict gun rights.”

Alan Gottlieb, founder of Second Amentment Foundation, – “This is not the record of a man [Holder] who will come to office as the nation’s top law enforcement officer with the rights and concerns of gun owners in mind.”

1/17/2008 …..   GUN ISSUES  ….   Remember how Obama said he wasn’t going to take your guns?  Well, it seems that his minions and allies in the anti-gun world have no problem with taking your AMMO.  The Ammunition Accountability Legislation is a bill that is now being pushed in 18 states.  It requires all ammunition to be encoded by the manufacturer, providing a data base of all ammunition sales.  They will know how much you buy and what calibers.  Nobody can sell any ammunition after June 30, 2009 unless it is coded.  Any privately held uncoded ammunition must be destroyed by July 1, 2011 (including hand loaded ammo).  They will also charge .05 cent tax on every round you buy.  This legislation is currently pending in 18 states:  Ala., Ariz., Cal., Conn., Hawaii, Ill., Ind., Ken., Md., Miss., Missouri., NJ., NY., Pa., RI., SC., Tenn., and Wash.

1/17/2008 …..  ABORTION ….  Some citizens of the 9th have created a website www.ffl9.com/  which addresses opposition to Boucher’s co-sponsorship of Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).  It is an excellent site which provides in-depth info on FOCA and is highly recommended.  (There is a link to that site on our Home Page).

1/21/09 ….. JOBS ….  A guest editorial, published in some local newspapers serving the 9th, by Julia Ciarlo Hammond, addressed the upcoming vote in Congress on the “Employee Free Choice Act”.  Ms. Hammond is state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, Virginia’s leading small business association.  (The NFIB is mentioned in the “JOBS” section of this website.  They give a “100″ approval rating to  fellow Virginia Representatives Drake, Forbes, Goodlatte, and Cantor.  They give a “86″ rating to Rep. Wolf.  Then, there is BOUCHER with his rating of “43″).

Ms. Hammond refers to the more appropriately called Act as the “Employee Forced Choice Act”.  Virginia’s small businesses are struggling right now to keep the doors open and the last thing they need is some bureaucrat dictating the wages and benefits they pay to their employees.  The Bill would replace secret ballots with a process known as card check.

If the Bill were to become law, unions could organize a workplace simply by persuading a majority of workers to sign authorization cards.  There would be no subsequent secret-ballot election – and no chance for management to present their case as to what the ramifications might be for their employees’ futures.

Once the union had enough signatures, contract negotiations would begin.  If the union couldn’t come to terms within a set number of days, then a federal bureaucrat would step in and dictate wages and other benefits.  Card check might possibly jeopardize Virginia’s excellent labor-management climate.  A repair shop would be as vulnerable as a manufacturing plant and small businesses might have to decide whether they can afford to grow, add jobs, or even stay in business.

Let’s see how BOUCHER, and his “43″ approval rating, reacts to the CARD CHECK situation when it comes up for a vote.

1/23/09 …. ABORTION …. An article in the Bristol Herald Courier reported on a meeting, held at Johnston Memorial Hospital, of about 35 health care professionals who are concerned about the effects of FOCA – Freedom of Choice Act – soon to be considered by Congress.  The professionals were seeking to learn more about the legislation.  Typical of Mr. Boucher, he responded, via e-mail, to one person’s inquiry about FOCA by writing, “The bill only restates current law as reflected in Supreme Court rulings interpreting the Constitutionally based right to privacy”.  Intellectually honest?   Here is a question for Mr. Boucher …. If that is honestly the case, then why is the bill necessary at all?  He further writes, “You can be assured that I will keep your views in mind when it is considered by the House of Representatives.”  That’s nice … but in TRUTH … Boucher is a CO-SPONSOR of the legislation!

1/28/09 …. Voted FOR the so-called “Obama Stimulus Bill”.

Background:  Rick Boucher voted “NO” on 3/14/06 to the Anti-terrorism Act of 1996 – “that provides the government with increased leeway in investigation and prosecuting suspected terrorists and increases the penalties for attempting and executing terrorists acts”.  Again, he voted “NO”, instead insisting on more domestic federal spending (PORK) with “funding to be derived from INTELLIGENCE and DEFENSE budgets”.

5/22/96 …  Disclosure of Intelligence Spending Amendment – “to require the President to submit to Congress an annual, separate, UNCLASSIFIED intelligence budget detailing the aggregate amounts spent for intelligence activities”.  Boucher voted “YES” to making the information available … and unclassified.  Congress REJECTED the amendment.

10/12/01 … thirty days after 9/11 … The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 was a “vote to give the federal government a broad range of powers to combat terrorism”.  Congress PASSED it 337-79.  Rick Boucher voted “NO”.

10/24/01 … Patriot Act  -  “Grants law enforcement more authority to search homes, tap phone lines, and track internet use of suspected terrorists”.  Congress PASSED it 357-66.  Rick Boucher voted “NO”.

7/21/05 …  Patriot Act Reauthorization.  Boucher voted “NO”.  Congress PASSED it.

12/14/05 … Patriot Act Reauthorization.  Boucher voted “NO” again.  Congress PASSED it again.

3/7/06 … Patriot Act Reauthorization.  Boucher voted “NO” again.  Congress PASSED it again.

6/29/06 … Intelligence & Law Enforcement Resolution – “supporting INTELLIGENCE efforts to identify terrorists and track their finances in addition to condemning the disclosure of CLASSIFIED information.  Boucher voted “NO”.  Congress PASSED it.

9/28/06 … Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act – “to amend Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 to allow the government to use electronic surveillance to investigate potential terrorists.  Boucher voted “NO”.  Congress PASSED it.

9/29/06 … Military Commissions Act of 2006 – “bill that creates a military commission to try unlawful enemy combatants for violations of the laws of war and establishes rules for conduct of those commissions”.  Boucher voted “NO”.  Congress PASSED it.

8/4/07 … Foreign Intelligence Acquisition – “authorizes the U.S. to monitor suspicious FOREIGN electronic communications – concerning suspected terrorists – routed through the country – without a court order”.  Congress PASSED the authorization.  Of course, and as could be suspected, the ACLU opposed the measure – based on civil liberties.  And … you guessed it … Rick Boucher voted “NO” to the measure.

Do you see a trend here on “fighting” terrorism?

With that track record in mind, how many times have we seen Mr. Boucher’s picture in virtually every local newspaper in the 9th District, with federal money for local law enforcement, fire houses, etc. – funds called ”first responders” to react to and prevent “terrorists attacks”?

Hmmm ….  .  You be the judge.

It has been fascinating to watch how Mr. Boucher often votes (or speaks) directly BEFORE an election … regardless of the issue … and then to see his position change almost immediately AFTER the election.  (For example, see the category Kuwait/Iraq War).

On energy, Mr. Boucher voted FOR tax breaks and incentives for oil companies (on 7/28/05) in what supporters said was an effort to spur oil and gas companies to provide innovative ways to REDUCE the nation’s DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL, conserve resources and reduce pollution.  On 1/18/07, with the new Democrat Congress in place, Mr. Boucher voted YES to HR 6 which, among other things, would REPEAL tax cuts for oil companies and mandate that they pay a fee to remove oil from the Gulf of Mexico.  Critics, however, said it actually would decrease domestic oil production so the country would RELY MORE HEAVILY on IMPORTED oil.

Mr. Boucher has voted NO to nuclear power (’92), NO to ethanol (’92), No to any new refineries (10/7/05), NO to drilling in ANWR (3 times, the last 8/2/01), and No to off-shore drilling (5/18/06).

Well, where do we go from there?

(There was a “window dressing” vote on off-shore drilling shortly BEFORE  the ’08 election [9/16 ] and ANWR [7/08] so that candidates could claim a vote FOR the issues.  The restrictions, however, made both measures almost absurd).

Then, this past summer (in an election year!), he was on an oilsands (“dirty oil”) fact finding mission in Alberta, Canada.  Boucher is chair of the energy and air quality subcommittee.  He toured the Albian Sands mine near Fort McMurray and met with oil industry officials in Calgary.  He had also visited a carbon dioxide capture and storage project in Weyburn, Sask.

As background, the use of oilsands (dirty oil) has come under fire in the United States and an advisor to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama questioned the country’s use of “dirty oil”.  Also, in June of 2008, U.S. Mayors passed a resolution calling on cities to ban the purchase of energy from unconventional sources, including oilsands, for their municipal fleets because they say it produces three times the carbon emissions it takes to produce conventional oil.

Anyway, (after again considering Boucher’s persistent track record over many years of  “NO”  votes to drilling for oil, refineries, offshore drilling, etc., etc. which has increased our dependence on foreign oil thereby threatening our economic security),  our Congressman finally (again in an election year) uttered this “profound” proclamation:  “Much of our money is being exported today to Saudi Arabia, and to the Middle East, and to places where the diplomatic goals are contrary to our own in many cases.”

Really?   Duh.

He then said that it’s important that we purchase ever-increasing volumes of oil from Canada.  Oh well, we will probably have to wait until AFTER the ’08 election to discover the truth about what Mr. Boucher really believes .  

On 5/27/93, he DID vote FOR establishing fuel and energy excise TAXES on all petroleum products, natural gas, coal, electricity and raises on GASOLINE Tax and DIESEL TAX.   (Along with that, he voted FOR limiting discretionary spending for DEFENSE DEPARTMENT for “the next five years”).

The reality is that Mr. Boucher pays lip service to wind, biomass, geothermal, solar, small irrigation power, landfill gas, trash combustion, hydropower, marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy facilities.  He also knows that clean coal, and especially liquid coal, is many years away in the U.S.   All alternative energy sources are certainly worth the investment for possible future solutions to the energy crises.

Like it or not, however, if we had started drilling in ANWR the first time it was voted on - or the second or the third – U.S. oil would be flowing freely while we seek alternative energy methods.  Also, nuclear power could have already been established.  We could have ALREADY freed our dependence on foreign oil and been more energy independent and secure. 

Oh well, perhaps twenty years from now Mr. Boucher will still be telling us “how good it’s going to be” while he continues to secure his own power status in Washington.

You be the judge.

Traditional core values have been challenged as all references to God or the Ten Commandments have been stripped from our schools, courtrooms and public square.  The ACLU even seems determined to remove “In God We Trust” form our currency.  Human life has been devalued as over 40 million abortions have been performed and Congress even demands that hard working tax payers foot the bill.

What does any of this have to do with our Congressman, Rick Boucher? 

Well, he claims “traditional Southwest Virginia values” when he runs for office while he receives a 100% approval rating from the likes of ACLU, Planned Parenthood and NEA.  His bi-annual campaign ads predictably boast of his “conservative values”  while, in Washington,  he receives a “95%’ approval rating of  “Americans for Democratic Action” - a group which advertises itself as “America’s oldest independent LIBERAL lobbying organization”.

Whom do you believe?

Based on his record in Congress, Political Action Committees such as “Club for Growth”, the “Family Research Council”, and “American Family Association” give Mr. Boucher approval ratings ”0″, “11%, and “0″ respectively.  Those groups promote:  ”traditional values, marriage and family, values human life and upholds institutions of marriage and family”.

How do other groups rate our congressman?

The American Conservative Union gives Mr. Boucher an approval rating of … “8″ (out of 100).   Concerned Women for America … “22″.  The “Eagle Forum” is a Political Action Committee whose mission is to “elect candidates at every level; and articulate conservative and pro-family policies … “.  It gives Mr. Boucher an approval rating of … “17″.

The PAC “Campaign for Working families” is a”non-partisan PAC dedicated to electing pro-family, pro-life and pro-free enterprise candidates to federal and state offices”.  It gives Mr. Boucher … “14″.

“National Journal” gives a kinder rating for Mr. Boucher on economic policy, foreign policy, and social policy.  It gives a composite score of … “37″ to our congressman.

Suthwest Virginia values?

ACLU …. 100% approval of Boucher.  American Family Association …. “0″ approval of Boucher.

You be the judge.

In 1995, Mr. Boucher voted NO to Term Limits (which would limit Congress to 12 terms).

In 1997, Mr. Boucher voted NO to Term Limits (which would limit Congress to 6 terms).

Mr. Boucher voted NO to Flat Tax.

In 2006, Mr. Boucher voted NO to the Federal Election Integrity Act (“Photo to Vote Act”).  It passed.

Mr. Boucher voted NO to school vouchers.

Mr. Boucher has voted in disfavor with Nuclear Energy.

Mr. Boucher voted NO to 1998 “Patient Protection Bill”.  It passed.

Mr. Boucher voted NO to Patients’ Bill of Rights Bill” in 1999.  It authorized small businesses to subscribe to health insurance pools formed by Trade Associations thereby making health insurance more affordable for small companies (less than 25 employees).

In 2003 Boucher voted No to the Medicare Prescription Bill.  It passed.

In 2004, Boucher voted NO to the Medical Malpractice Limitation Bill which limited dollar amounts awarded in suits filed against small business.  It passed.

In 1995, Mr. Boucher voted AGAINST the “Private Property Protection Act” which requires federal compensation of private property owners when federal actions reduce value of that property by 20% or more.  It Passed (277-148).  (The American Land Rights Association gives Mr. Boucher a “0″ approval rating.  They promote protection of private property rights.  MR. BOUCHER IS THE ONLY REPRESENTATIVE IN VIRGINIA WITH A “0″ RATING).

On the other hand, there is the “Americans for Democratic Action” which advertises itself as “America’s oldest independent LIBERAL lobbying organization”.  They give Mr. Boucher a “95%” approval rating.

For some reason Mr. Boucher has continually voted almost 100% against NASA programs and funding.

Mr. Boucher is in favor of stem cell research without restrictions.  HR 810 on 5/24/05 would have REPEALED RESTRICTIONS on federal spending on embryonic stem cell research.  Mr. Boucher voted YES.

One very prominent citizens’ watchdog group, National Tax Payers Union, rates each member of Congress on how taxpayer friendly they are.  It has labeled Rick Boucher a “BIG SPENDER” on tax votes – a tax and spend liberal – and for 2007 assigned him an approval rating of … “F” … for the LAST ELEVEN YEARS IN A ROW.  Only in 1996, did he receive a higher grade …. a  “D”.  On a percentage rating, in 2007 Boucher received an approval rating of  … 5%!  By comparison, other Virginia Representatives - ”A” (Cantor – 7th Dist.), “B+” (Drake – 2nd Dist. and Goodlatte – 6th Dist.), “B” (Forbes – 4th Dist.), and  ”C-” (Wolf ” – 10th Dist. ).

The American Conservative Union gave Mr. Boucher a rating of  “8″ (out of 100).  Taxpayers for Common Sense, and Citizens Against Government Waste rank him similarly.  The latter group, known for its annual “PIG BOOK”, gave Rick Boucher a rating of ……   “2″!  That is the lowest rating of any Representative in Virginia.

Typical of Mr. Boucher, he never uses the term “earmark” (PORK).  He characterizes it as “Congressionally Directed Spending”!

Americans for TAX REFORM gave Mr. Boucher an approval rating of … “0″  (out of 100).  National Tax Limitation Committee …. “9″ (out of 100).  American Shareholders Association …. “20″ (out 100).  You are invited to confirm any of these organizations’ ratings via the internet.

Also, “FreedomWorkers” is an organization whose mission is … “fights for lower taxes, less government and more economic freedom for Americans with hundreds of thousands of volunteer activists all over the nation”.  It gives Rick Boucher an approval rating of …. “10″ (out of 100). 

How could all of these independent groups come to the same basic conclusion?   

After running on his “conservative values” every two years, Mr. Boucher goes right back and sticks his snout in the federal trough.  One citizen near Bristol has estimated Rick Boucher’s “earmarks” (PORK) at nearly one Billion dollars.

Mr. Boucher has voted AGAINST “Flat Tax”, FOR tax increases, and AGAINST virtually all issues of “tax reform”.

For example, on 5/27/93 Boucher voted to raise tax rates, establish fuel and energy excise taxes on all petroleum products, natural gas, coal and electricity, raise gas tax and diesel tax.  (Along with those tax increases came a limit on discretionary spending for DEFENSE DEPARTMENT for “next five years”.  It should be added that he again voted for massive domestic federal spending with in his words  … “funds to be derived from INTELLIGENCE and DEFENSE Budgets”).   Remember 9/11?

In 1995, Boucher voted AGAINST the Welfare Reform Bill (which passed) – an extremely successful Bill lauded by both Republicans and Democrats.  It was an act to enhance support and work opportunities for families with children, reduce Welfare dependence, and control Welfare spending.

In 1995, the Contract With America Tax Relief Act was passed.  It was a Bill that cut personal and business taxes over 5 years, decreased “marriage penalty” in Federal Tax Code, and increased the threshold for “Death Tax”.  Boucher voted ….  “NO”.

The list goes on.  The Financial Freedon Act of 1999 was passed.  Boucher voted  “NO”.  In 2003 the Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act amended the IRS Code to protect taxpayers and ensure accountability of IRS (to make IRS less threatening in their methods).  Boucher voted .. NO.

Mr. Boucher voted FOR the Wall Street bail-out and the automobile bail-out.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.  Any wonder why some of the citizens’ groups and associations listed above tagged Rick Boucher a “tax and spend liberal” and “Big Spender”?

Check them out.  Southwest Virginia values?  You be the judge.

However, here is the problem.  Intellectually dishonest?

Similar to “Gun Issues” discussed under that category on this website, Mr. Boucher also promoted Barack Obama as a “friend of coal” to constituents of the 9th District during the 2008 campaign.  Boucher “suggested to him [Obama] particular strategies that have worked for us”, noting that “ads related to the coal industry and targeting issues such as respect for gun rights were among the suggestions given.”

Campaign ads were run which were titled “Obama leads the fight for clean coal”.

Boucher proclaimed that Obama was a “friend to gun owners”.  Yet, the National Rifle Association exposed that claim as an absolute joke, citing Obama’s actual record on gun rights BEFORE he ran for President.  The NRA stated that ”Sen. Obama would be the most ani-gun president in American history”.

If Mr. Boucher’s claim of Obama being a ”friend of gun owners” was exposed as a farce, then what about his claim of Obama being “a friend of coal”?  What about Obama’s track record BEFORE he decided to run for President?  And what about his comments about coal (that were caught on tape) while in San Francisco in January, 2008?.  Obama – “So if someone wants to build a coal-fired plant, they can.  It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted”.

Mr. Boucher told us that those words were taken “out of context”?  After hearing the words verbatum – videotaped – you be the judge.

And what about Joe Biden claiming to be a “hard coal miner” when he campaigned in Lebanon, Virginia on September 15, 2008 saying “it’s good to be back in coal country”.  Yet, TWO DAYS later in a videotaped exchange with an environmental campaigner in Ohio, Biden was caught on tape  saying that he and Sen Obama “are not supporting clean coal”.  Biden added, “No coal plants here in America”.  That was in response to the question of why he and Obama would back the expensive prospect of capturing and storing carbon dioxide emitted from coal-fired power plants.

Rick Boucher stated, “Senator Obama truly is a friend of the coal industry”.  He added, “His record … and his position in terms of the coal industry’s future give us confidence”.  Remember Boucher’s comments about Obama’s friendly record on gun rights?

Boucher also later stated that “We knew he would not carry the 9th District but the idea was for him [Obama] to perform well enough here to carry the state.”

What, or whom do you believe?

Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito of WEST VIRGINIA stated, “They are saying one thing in front of a large group, and when they actually are asked their true feelings, that’s when we really hear the attacks on coal”. 

On August 8, 2007, Biden was recorded as saying to reporter Amanda Grisom Little the following:  “I don’t think there’s much of a role for clean coal in energy independence, but I think there’s much of a role for clean coal in the bigger picture of climate change.  CLEAN COAL IS NOT THE WAY TO GO IN THE UNITED STATES because we have other, cleaner alternatives”.

It is almost unanimously agreed that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is many years from coming to fruition in the U.S.  It is also generally agreed that Obama’s stance on coal has been all over the spectrum.  Even the Obama-friendly “Los Angeles Times” on June 13, 2007 stated, “Sen. Obama on Tuesday backtracked from his long-held support for a controversial plan to promote the use of coal as an alternative fuel to power motor vehicles.”  The article went on to say “Obama seemed to be making his choice clear: pledging to oppose any plan to turn coal into liquid fuel unless it adhered to strict environmental safeguards” … “an e-mail from Obama’s staff stated that unless and until this technology is perfected, Senator Obama will not support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20% less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels. ” … “But it sparked confusion among coal industry officials, who until Tuesday had viewed Obama as an ally on the issue, and drew cheers from environmentalists, who described it as a change.” … “Although some activists welcomed Obama’s changed stance on the coal legislation, industry officials on Tuesday were trying to make sense of his apparent change of heart.”

Whew.

Obama’s stance on coal gets even more confusing!  On his website in September, 2008 it stated under the heading “Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology” :  “Obama’s Dept. of Energy will enter into public private partnerships to develop five “first of a kind” commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology”.

A review of Obama’s stated positions and legislative actions on coal show that he is mostly relatively pro-coal.  However, in 2007, he switched gears and voted AGAINST the very legislation that he and Sen Jim Bunning (R-Ky) had earlier sponsored!  Consider the following quote from “Denver’s Magazine 5280″ on Sept. 29, 2008:  “After co-sponsoring legislation earlier this year for billions of dollars in subsidies for liquefied coal, Obama more recently began qualifying his support in ways that have left both environmentalists and coal industry officials UNSURE WHERE HE STANDS”.  …. “Last week, Obama voted AGAINST coal-to-liquid incentives proposed by Bunning, DESPITE TEAMING UP WITH HIM SIX MONTHS AGO.”

The bottom line is …. whom do you believe?  Like the gun issue, was Mr. Boucher less than honest about the real Obama and Biden as to their stance on coal?  Was it simply “tell them what they want to hear” so that Boucher could help deliver Virginia to a blue state for the Democrats?

Time will be the judge.

It has been confounding, to say the least, to watch nearly ONE BILLION dollars of  federal “pork” brought to the 9th District by Mr. Boucher.  He gets re-elected.  Yet the job losses have continued to mount even while we offer one of the best work forces in America.  Further, during Boucher’s terms in office, an estimated 15,000 of our college graduates have left the area due to lack of job opportunities.

To read some of Mr. Boucher’s press releases over the years, carried as “news stories” by many local newspapers, one might conclude that we have the highest-paying jobs and lowest unemployment of any place in America!  Mr. Boucher’s website boasts that, “During his years as a member of Congress, Rick Boucher’s top priority has been bringing jobs to Southwest Virginia.” 

Any, and all, new jobs are readily welcomed.  Yes, “tourism” is, well, nice.  ”Call Centers” are billed as “high tech” by Mr. Boucher even though they offer instability, relatively low wages, limited advancement, and are subject to leaving the area on the turn of a dime (which has already happened in some of our areas).  It has been pointed out that such “call centers” are not so much “recruited” to an area as much as they seek out areas in which to locate.  In many cases, after they have “exhausted” the “perks” of a locality, they then pick up and move.  For example, In Clintwood, Virginia Travelocity.com flew the coop for India after exhausting $10 million dollars in “corporate welfare”.

Mr. Boucher says that “small businesses are the cornerstone of the economy in the 9th District.”  (See below the ratings given to Mr. Boucher by various pro-business PAC’s).  One example of Mr. Boucher’s innovation in new job creation is the renovated Jacksonville Center in the Town of Floyd.  “The Center will serve as a small business incubator with a cultural focus, providing space for small businesses which primarily emphasize arts, crafts, and other tourism related endeavors.  It will also serve as a theatre and community center.  The new facility will house TWENTY small business tenants”.  Also, a dormitory on the premises will have the capacity to house between 8 and 10 students from other localities who will participate in week-long craft seminars.”  At last count, a total of $461,794.00 in taxpayers’ money had been invested in that project.  Do you feel that twenty small tenants specializing in arts and crafts will significantly impact “job creation” in Floyd County?   

Anyway, why does it seem as though whatever new jobs are being created in the state go elsewhere in Virginia?  Well, here is a staggering and sobering reality to consider.

Instead of listing Mr. Boucher’s votes and activities in Congress (not to mention tens of millions of dollars in pork-barrel spending) as they relate to ”pro-business”, let’s reveal what others are saying …. outside of our District …. as a result of Boucher’s track record.

BUSINESS-INDUSTRY Political Action Committe (BIPAC), located in D.C., is a political action committe whose mission is:  “identifies and supports PRO-BUSINESS candidates who have demonstrated skill and leadership necessary to fuel pro-business Congress”.  For 2007, they give the following ratings to elected Representatives in Virginia:  John Warner (80), Thelma Drake (100), James Randy Forbes (92), Virgil Goode (83), Robert Goodlatte (92), Eric Cantor (100), Frank Wolf (71).  Are you ready for this? …. RICK BOUCHER …… “7″.  Any questions?  (To help ease the pain, Jim Webb was given a “20″ and Robert Scott and James Moran were also given a “7″).

Here’s more.  The NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS has the following mission:  “The NAM’s mission is to enhance the competitiveness of manufacturers and to improve American living standards by shaping a legislative and regulatory environment conducive to U.S. economic growth and to increase understanding among policymakers, the media and the public about the importance of manufacturing to America’s economic strength.”   They rate VIRGINIA Representatives the following:  Warner, Drake, Forbes, Goodlatte and Cantor each got “100″ ratings.  Goode received an “88″ rating and Wolf an “83″.   RICK BOUCHER received …. “46″.  Again to ease the pain somewhat, Moran got a “38″ and Scott an “8″.

Or how about this one?  The “AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY” has a mission statement as follows:  “AP is guided by a vision of greater economic growth, opportunity, and prosperity through strong ethical foundations, government restraint, and private sector productivity and competition.  Educates citizens about economic policy and mobilizes citizens to achieve fiscal and regulatory restraint by government and a return of federal government to its constitutional limits.”  For 2007, it gives a “100″ rating to Cantor, a “90″ rating to Drake, Forbes, and Goode, an “81″ to Goodlatte and “83″ to Warner.  To RICK BOUCHER it gives a ……. “0″.

Here is another.  The “National Federation of Independent Business” is a “key business resource for small and independent business in America.  By pooling the purchasing power of its 600,000 members, NFIB gives access to many business products and services at discounted costs.  Also provides timely information designed to help small businesses succeed”.  By contrast, Virginia’s Warner, Drake, Forbes, Goodlatte, and Cantor all received “100″ approval ratings.  Wolf … “86″.  Over the last four years Rick Boucher has received an average score of … “43″.  

In putting the pieces together, does there seem to be a “trend”?

Surprised?

If you were a manufacturer or a company looking for pro-business locations, to whom would you look first?  To someone who has a high pro-business rating … or to someone who has a 100% approval rating by, say,  ACLU, NEA and NARAL, etc.?

You are encouraged to look at Rick Boucher’s corporate sponsors for his campaign financing.  (That information is listed in the “Campaign Finances” section of this website).

You be the Judge.

Rick Boucher voted …..  “NO”.

You are invited to visit English First. org.  This is an organization which bills itself as “Fighting for Official English since 1986″.  They rate every member of Congress as to votes regarding their cause.  In VIRGINIA,  Representatives Drake (2nd District), Forbes (4th), Goode (5th), and Goodlatte (6th) received “A” ratings with Cantor (7th), Wolf (10th), and Davis (11th) receiving a rating of “B”.

In the 9th District, RICK BOUCHER was given a rating of ……..   “F”.

It explains that an “F” rating means … “reliable anti-English voter.  Can be counted on to consistently vote against English First issues”.  It goes on to say that an “F” rating also “means an anti-English LEADER”.

Likewise, an organization called US English. org, gave Goodlatte, Cantor, Drake, Forbes, Goode and Wolf  an “A” rating.  RICK BOUCHER ….  “F”.

Does Rick Boucher represent your views on the issue of English being the official language of America?

You be the judge.

In the Act passed in 1996, it states that Congress declares the following:

1.  The United States is comprised of individuals and groups from diverse ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds.

2.  The United States has benefitted and continues to benefit from this rich diversity.

3.  Throughout the history of the United States, the common thread binding individuals of differing backgrounds has been a common language.

4.  In order to preserve unity in diversity, and to prevent division along linguistic lines, the Federal Government should maintain a language common to all people.

5.  English has historically been the common language of opportunity in the United States.

6.  The purpose of this title is to help immigrants better assimilate and take full advantage of economic and occupational opportunities in the United States.

7.  By learning the English language, immigrants will be empowered with the language skills and literacy necessary to become responsible citizens and productive workers in the United States.

8.  The use of a single common language in conducting official business of the Federal Government will promote efficiency and fairness to all people.

9.  English should be recognized in law as the language of official business of the Federal Government.

10.  Any monetary savings derived from the enactment of this title should be used for the teaching of the English language to non-English speaking immigrants.